Friday, May 14, 2010

Leadership and Issues Poll

EDIT: Because of an error on my part, reversing the numbers for Layton and Ignatieff, I've re-written part of this post.

We'll start with the issue poll, since it actually marks a big change in how Canadians are feeling right now. This was an unprompted question, so Canadians were free to respond however they liked.

Healthcare is now the biggest issue facing the country, at 22.8% (up about three points since Nanos last asked the question). Jobs and the economy is at 18.6%, down almost six points.This marks a big change, since in early 2009 "jobs/economy" peaked at well over 50%. But ever since then it has dropped and is now considered to be the second most-important issue facing the country.

It makes you wonder if the parties, and in particular the Conservatives, will change their tune.

Every other issue has been relatively stable over the past few years, though there was a brief surge in concern over the environment, which has since dropped to 10.8% (though that is up three). Healthcare was the dominant issue back in 2004, when it was at 45%.

Education is only the top issue of 5.4%, indicating that we're far more concerned with how we're going to die than how the country's future is going to look.

But what about who Canadians feel is best equipped to handle these issues? Well, there hasn't been much change, but for once Michael Ignatieff is on the up-swing.Stephen Harper is still considered the best man for the job he currently has, with 29.5% saying he is the best for Prime Minister. However, that is down from 32.0% in February.

Ignatieff is up to 17.3% from 16.1%, while Jack Layton has dropped from 18.1% to 15.6%. So, the Liberal leader can be pleased he has barely squeaked into second place again.

Gilles Duceppe, an odd choice for Prime Minister and a job he'd likely turn down, is the best man for 6.3%. Elizabeth May is down to 5.5%, and "screw 'em all" is at 11.3%.

Harper's best numbers came, unsurprisingly, in the Prairies, where he is the best for 46.5%. His worst numbers were, also unsurprisingly, in Quebec: 20.2%.

Ignatieff performed best in Ontario with 23.5%, but worst in the Prairies with 10.9%.

Layton's at 24.6% in Quebec for Best Prime Minister, but at 8.6% in the Prairies.

Duceppe got a 21.1% rating in his province.

As to the questions of trust, competence, and having a vision for Canada, Harper comes up aces - but significantly his scores for "trust" (23.9%) and "vision" (25.1%) were below his score for Best PM. Apparently, people think he is competent and a good administrator, but not exactly trustworthy or inspiring.

Ignatieff's scores on these questions were all below his PM score. Ignatieff had a 11.0% score on trust, 15.1% on competence, and 14.7% on vision.

Layton is not seen as competent (11.7%%) as much as he is trusted (16.8%).

Duceppe earned some praise in the ROC, with 9% trusting him most and 8.2% saying he is most competent. Strangely enough, only 3.9% consider him to have the best vision for Canada. The mind boggles.

May's best score came on trust (6.8%).

And, of course, the "none of them" out-scored everyone, at between 32.6% and 34.6% on each question.

So, what to take from these polls. Healthcare and the economy are still the major issues in this country, and our political leaders are generally unliked.

An excellent point. Were I to answer this poll, I would not have considered healthcare or education as they are provincial issues.

I wonder if the debate in the United States has contributed to the increase in concern over the issue here.

The problem with the healthcare system seems to be consistency. My grandmother-in-law was left waiting for hours in hospital when she had fallen, while my mother yesterday was taken in to see the doctor right away when she was having an issue.

Some people have trouble finding a family doctor, I had no trouble whatsoever.

The problem is that people like sharing bad anecdotes more than they do good anecdotes, so you get a generally negative impression of our system.

Hard to tell, but I'd say the declining concern about jobs and the economy bodes well for the federal Tories. All else being equal, it's better for the incumbant to fight an election where people's pressing concern isn't whether they'll have a job next month. Particularly, where the other areas of concern are areas where the Feds have minimal responsibility and there are low expectations about the ability of either the government or any opposition parties to do anything about it.

For trust and 'who would be the best leader' polls I think a comparison to their parties national numbers would be more interesting. I do that anyways when reading the figures, but it would give an idea to the reader about leaders dragging their parties down or lifting them up.

Namely, how many Conservatives support the party _despite_ Harper? It ranges from 3% to 9% depending on question. For Ignatieff it ranges from 10% to 15%, Layton from 1% to 6%, May from 4% to 9%, and Duceppe from 0% to 5%.

Adjust to a percentage of their support and it gets to...CPC/Harper: 9% to 27%Liberal/Ignatieff: 37% to 56%NDP/Layton: 6% to 35%Green/May: 38% to 85% (!)BQ/Duceppe: 0% to 54%

As much as I'd like to see something positive from the Green/May result it isn't there. The NDP and BQ have no shot at forming gov't also yet their leaders do far better. Ignatieff is a mill-stone on the Liberals - they really are doing poorly on picking leaders lately. Harper isn't an asset, but not a killer either which right now is a good thing.

I could swear that back in the 80's Broadbent was getting scores higher than the NDP had overall, thus a major plus but I don't have proof on me. I suspect, at first, that Martin was the same for the Liberals (until he listened to his advisors too much).

This poll makes a lot of sense. Most people pay attention to politics on issues that affect them. A good example was the failed NB Power sale, which I suspect there will large voter turnout in the fall election.

The Job/Economy reduced in priority since last year, because many people are working again, and there is less of a fear that many people will lose their jobs in the near futrue. But it is still a concern to many people, expecially those in regions such as Northern Ontario, and rural Quebec where there are job losses in mining and forestry.

But after job security, most people are concerned with Healthcare and Schools for their kids. There isn't much (shouldn't be much) that the feds can do about this because of provincial jurisdiction, but that is still most people's priorities.

I work for an aircraft outfit, with a variety of people with different backgrounds, and frankly if there is any political conversation it consists of local municipal issues, schooling, and health for the most part, and of course the gun registry. In the past few months we have never talked about Jaffer/Geurgis, Afgan Detainies, or even the minute Parliament Hill Gossip.

So this shows that, if any party wants to increase there popular vote, they may want to propose real policy that may affect real people. But do so at their peril as real policies can quickly agitate a lot more people.

The key question isn't so much where the numbers are today; it's where they'll be when the writ drops. The graph on page 1 of the issues poll is especially interesting.

At the beginning of the recession-to-end-all recessions, concern about jobs and the economy naturally spiked. This country is now on a clear course to comfortable territory and economic issues have steadily lost mindshare (although you wouldn't credit it from this monomaniacal page, which hasn't changed in months).

By contrast, the environment was on a steady climb (leaving out the anomalous spike in early 2007) before the economic meltdown. It lost ground to the economy for a period, but there's a recent uptick.

Is that uptick just noise? If so, expect the three largest parties to rush to the healthcare bandwagon.

I believe it's the beginning of another climb to a point where concern for the environment will rival or surpass healthcare as the top issue. If so, greenwash is likely to flow from the larger parties and also the Bloc. (They will face varying levels of credibility challenges.)

Either way, the Green Party will continue to be the environmental conscience of Canadian politics as part of its complete platform. (All the issues are interrelated.) However, Green fortunes can be expected to follow interest in green issues. This is true even if (when) the other parties trot out green positions.

Put differently, Green polling results have held up and strengthened through a non-green period. We may all be surprised by future Green numbers.

Check back in a couple of months. At that point we should have enough data for an interesting discussion.

Health care is a big cost, but since the oldest in our society vote and they are the ones who will need it the most then there is an opening for the party which can find a way to own the senior health issue.

IMO that means a party coming up with a realistic way to work with the provinces to implement better home care (allowing seniors to stay at their homes longer) via nurses and home care workers going to homes on a regular basis. Declare that we all have the right to live on our own as long as possible (with help) and you'll get a lot of that senior vote I'm sure.

Given that seniors are strongly pulled to the Conservatives/Liberals only and rarely vote NDP or Green or BQ that means this is the wedge that the Liberals need to exploit if they want to catch up to the CPC, and for the CPC it is what they need to pull into majority territory (although they have fewer votes to gain among the 65+ crowd).

A reminder to the young - get your butts out and vote if you ever want better public transportation and cheaper university tuition.

Really good analysis. The home care is the stuff of genius. Many seniors want to remain their homes and out of nursing homes. Most can do it with adequate assistance. Just as importantly home care is a big, big winner in the fight to control health care costs. Building nursing homes is expensive. Many seniors and chronic care patients take up hospital beds at enormous cost. Free up beds in chronic care facilities by keeping other seniors in their homes and costs are significantly.

When the RCMP announces its not going to launch an investigation into Geurgis she'll be let back into caucus and this issue will go away. (Or they'll confirm they are investigating which will help Harper too).

G8 and G20 issues will be resolved. More good news on the economy should be coming in for the next couple of months.

The table has been cleared. All the scandals washed away.

Honestly at this point I wouldn't be surprised if Harper gambles on an election at the end of the summer.

Healthcare is one of those issues (Or the issue) that conssitently is important, but federal leaders either don't know how to do anythnig about it, or don't have the authority to make the canges they want. If someone figures out some way around this, they may have a fertle ground for policies that get you elected.

When the RCMP announces its not going to launch an investigation into Geurgis she'll be let back into caucus and this issue will go away.

Guergis could also file a lawsuit against government as well, she does seem pretty upset with the whole thing. I also doubt that it will just go away if she agrees to go back into caucus and cabinet, people will still question her wheather shes clean or not.

PoscStudent there is zero basis for Geurgis to sue the gov't. A lawyer would tell her that in a second.

Nor would she be allowed back into cabinet because of what's happening with her spouse. So the issue of whether she's clean or not won't come up, the RCMP having cleared her and her having zero public profile after this.

Basically if she is cleared she can look forward to being a backbench Conservative MP with a good paying job and a pension.

Although it is off topic it does illustrate what can happen when a party leaves the proximate centre and lets the fringe takeover. Lets hope that this truly the undoing of the current GOP and that in an election or two they return as a centrist party with wide appeal. If these kooks gain power we are all in trouble, trouble that would make the 2008-09 look like a walk in the park or a "tea Party".

Henry - the Liberal failures of the past several years are lagely a result of Canadians coming to view them as the compromise party. They don't really do anything the way anyone wants, but they're a neat compromise.

This might be a good way to govern, but it's a lousy way to win an election.

Of course in the case of rape or incest, if a young girl, or woman should find themselves pregnant, it will be a great comfort to them to know that idiot male politicians, think they should carry the child to term and put it up for adoption.

Women do not need inane male politicians telling them what to do with their own bodies.

Del Mastro, Bruinooge, and Watson should concern themselves with the business of the nation, and keep their bloody noses out of the wombs of the nation.

If that is all those three clowns have to worry about, it is quite obvious to me that they should not even be MP's.

It is a pity that those who are pro life and believe that their God considers abortion a sin can't allow that God the option of punishing those he sees fit in the afterlife. No, they consider it their mission to enforce what they PERCEIVE to be God's will on this earth. It should be enough for them to practice their beliefs and allow GOD to deal with sinners. However they feel duty bound to IMPOSE their beliefs on everyone.

Since we live in a secular society! We should defend the right of women to choose as strongly as we would defend the right to free speech. Any time someone wants to impose their religious beliefs on others it is wrong.

Imagine how upset we would be if Hindu's tried to get parliament to legislate what we can eat. Hindu's believe that killing animals to eat is wrong. We would be equally upset if Jewish Canadians tried to get pork banned or if Muslim Canadians tried to ban alcohol. Fortunately in Canada they don't try and impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Again we are a secular country.

Catholics have every right not to practice family planning but they have no right to try and dictate how the rest of us should live our lives. No-one forces anyone to get an abortion, it is a matter of choice.

Finally I will remind 49 again that similar elements exist in the LPOC.

"Finally I will remind 49 again that similar elements exist in the LPOC."

Yeah, but ever since Wappel was essentially castrated, they've barely got an organization or influence, unless of course a leader is foolish enough to push the issue without consultation. Not saying any names here. XD

I've always wondered though - do pro-life movements exist within the NDP and Bloc as well? With the NDP's history of rural seats and Christian socialism, you gotta assume there exists or existed some sort of movement at least within that party.

There was a Catholic priest who ran for the NDP in 2004 in Newfoundland who was given permission to abstain on any votes dealing with abortion - and even that sparked controversy. I would say that the NDP is 100% pro-choice - which is not to say that there are not people who vote NDP who may be anti-choice. I actually work with someone who is very religious and totally anti-abortion, but who votes NDP anyways because she feels that the NDP policies on social issues and health care outweigh the abortion issue.

I've also noticed that several NDP candidates who are clergymen and women often go out of their way on their websites to say something along the lines of "even though I'm a minister and a devout Christian - rest assured that I am 100% in favour of same sex marriage and i support a woman's right to choose"

The abortion group isn't confined to one party, ask Liberal Paul Szabo. If we're going to protect a women's reproductive rights we've got to as citizens identify who is in the anti abortion caucus and defeat them in the nomination process or at the polls:

It's not very far off the wall if you are an American. The RW fringe (which the Tea Party represents) would rather we endure another depression which would almost certainly be worst than the first because of the reduced financial circumstances of the Western world. They want to dismantle everything from Medicare for the elderly to to Medicaid for the poor and then the big one , Social Security. Collateral damage would include welfare, unions and possibly public schools.

Sociallt they'd go back to coat hangers and butchery rather abortion. Family planning would be restricted.

I think you're confusing the real radical fringe in the Tea Party with the actual bulk of the Tea Party, because in my experience and readings, most people are nothing but individuals who are very concerned over the possible loss of their programs due to this huge deficit and debt issue they have down south. Ask the average Tea Partier and you'll find out most quite enjoy the state provision of services. Unfortunately, like most people, they want their cake and want to eat it too - they ask for less spending and better service. It's quite odd.

"On 26 July 2006 Israeli forces attacked and destroyed an UN observer post. Described as a nondeliberate attack by Israel, the post was shelled for hours before being bombed. UN forces made repeated calls to alert Israeli forces of the danger to the UN observers, all four of whom were killed. Rescuers were shelled as they attempted to reach the post"

"On 30 July 2006 Israeli airstrikes hit an apartment building in Qana, killing 28 civilians, more than half of them children.[119] The airstrike was widely condemned"

"On 7 August 2006 the IAF attacked the Shiyyah suburb in the Lebanese capital of Beirut, destroying three apartment buildings in the suburb, killing at least 50 people."

Rodriguez came clean about what happened. Good on him, we need more MPs like that who are willing to be transparent. It's all well and fine, and everyone should be glad. Shut up about it.

Shory is named in a giant mortgage fraud and knew of the lawsuit beforehand, yet didn't let it come to light, because honestly, it will probably come to naught. It would have been better if he had told people what was going on, but the severity of the case isn't one warranting huge concern. Harper was right not to chastise him. Hell, even an Alberta Liberal ex-MLA was named in it. Where's that mention? Exactly. Shut up about it.

Guergis is a mess, yet she doesn't even know the charges against her. I feel sorry for her, but she should have been more careful. Shut up about it.

The most legitimate claim to anything worthwhile talking about is Jaffer, who is accused of very serious things that effect the transparency of the government as a whole. Watch that - not Rodriguez, not Shory, not even Guergis. Move on to the serious matter.

Tit-for-tat accusations and rebuttals are pointless. Shouldn't we be concentrating on the big picture and be assiduously preparing for an election? -- now, that's what really floats my boat. How about yours!?

All Canadians, from all parties, have an interest in a clean Ottawa. When I first heard about Jaffer's activities I came on here and said I was done with him and would not bother defending him.

Nor should you defend Lee. Sometimes you need to rise above partisanship 49.

As for if Lee actually did any lobbying that's unclear, an investigation is needed. However, even if he didn't its still illegal to accept money on the basis that you have the ability to get priveleged access.

Quite frankly I want the book thrown at both of them.

And I think the practice of moonlighting should be ended in light of what happened with Derek Lee.

The Liberal party is responsible, for the lack of funding for access to safe abortions, and contraception????

It was Mr. Stephen Harper, and the Conservative party who brought forward this initiative.

it was Mr. Stephen Harper, and the Conservative party, who decided to put forward a maternal health initiative, for developing nations, and announced the initiative will include no funding for access to safe abortion, and will include no funding for contraception, thus taking reproductive choice away, for some of the worlds poorest women.

It was Stephen Harper, who decided to reverse Canada's long standing foreign policy, all on his own.

It was also Mr. Stephen Harper, and the Conservative party who cut the funding to planned parenthood.

It was Stephen Harper and the Conservative party who decided they do not agree with access to safe abortions, but they also disagree with contraception. Makes 100% perfect sense.

It must also be noted that before Stephen Harper had an epiphany, he cared not one iota about maternal health, and women and children in developing nations.

There is not background speech or policy announcement, or any written record of Mr Stephen Harper, ever having cared about this.

It must also be noted that the Liberal party decided to use one of their opposition days, to bring forward a motion, that would ask the government to include funding for access to safe abortions, and reproductive choices.

The motion being brought forward was NON BINDING, on the government, and Harper had already indicated his government was going to IGNORE it, even if it had passed.

Three pro life Liberal MP's voted with the government.

How many Conservative MP"s voted against the motion. Why that would be ALL OF THEM.

The Liberal party, does have some pro life MP's, but that limiting access to safe abortions is not official party.

I do not know if the Bloc, or the NDP, has any pro life MP's, but again as with the LPC, limiting access to safe abortions is not either Bloc, or NDP, official policy either.

It must also be noted that this initiative is ideological, because Stephen Harper, and his social conservative base do not like abortion. In fact just last week the Conservative government gave two groups almost $900,000 to translate bibles.

The Liberals if they had been in government would never have brought forward a maternal health initiative that did not include contraception, and access to safe abortions.

Now that the initiative is gaining attention, and other G8, nations have all panned it, of course Mr. Stephen Harper, and the conservative government Must blame the liberals for an initiative they brought forward.

Now that the polls are starting to show that Canadians do not agree with this initiative for not providing access to safe abortions, and reproductive choice, Mr. Stephen Harper is trying to blame the Liberals.

With only a few Liberal MPs not being pro-choice, and the party as a whole being a pro-choice party, voters merely need to take care in who they vote for locally. The same, of course, can be said of the Conservatives but with vote-whipping it is a more dangerous proposition.

AJR: I agree with you on your interpretation of the Lebanese war. I should have added that to the post.

Harper is messing up again. Although people are forgetting that it was Liberal Paul Szabo that said there will be another vote on abortion, not a Conservative.

The size of the anti choice movement in the LPOC caucus is a well kept secret. Of course the number of Liberal MP's would be considerably smaller because they have a much smaller caucus.

I am concerned that perhaps Harper is seeking to appeal not to the big cities but to the areas in them that are dominated by recent Asian immigrants most of whom do not support abortion rights for women. It is a bad miscalculation in my mind.

Eric now you're just changing the goalposts, although your new conclusion doesn't seem quite right either.

"The word "few" is not a fact"

Saying there are only a few pro-life Liberal MPs is indeed an incorrect factual assertion.

"still relatively few, compared to the Conservatives."

Relatively few? Well that's something different altogether.

Depends how you define it I guess. The Liberals have less seats so they're going to have less pro-life MPs. Using absolute numbers seems flawed though, as this statement is also correct:

There are nearly as many pro-choice Conservative MPs as there are pro-choice NDP MPs.

So using a percentage seems more appropriate. In which case 25% of the Liberal caucus is pro-life. This is a substantial number no matter how you cut it, even when compared to a 69% pro-life CPC caucus.

So using a percentage seems more appropriate. In which case 25% of the Liberal caucus is pro-life. This is a substantial number no matter how you cut it, even when compared to a 69% pro-life CPC caucus.

Eric if you mean to say there a large number of pro-life MPs in the house of commons that is a factually true statement i'd agree with.

My point in all of this is simply to expose the outrageous hypocrisy of the Liberal party starting a culture war against 1/4 of its caucus.

We see it with partisan Liberals on these boards too, Peter and 49 steps have both been provoking a culture war.

Its all a little bit rich.

If anyone out there is a serious, diehard, anti-abortion activist they're going to vote NDP or BQ.

Even if their local MP is pro-abortion they're not going to vote Liberal or Conservative because those parties are tolerant of pro-life views in their caucus and they don't want their per-vote subsidy going to pro-life tolerant parties.

So in the end the culture war the Liberals are starting is going to bolster the NDP and the BQ.

Peter you simply don't understand do you. I have no desire to trash anyone, in particular a Liberal supporter. I'm disgusted with anti CPC sentiment that comes from Liberal supporters and whether Shadow made a typo or what ever, he is entitled to an opinion regardless of his politics.

Again I quote from your post:

{"If anyone out there is a serious, diehard, anti-abortion activist they're going to vote NDP or BQ."

And of course he has no hard factual proof of this kind of punditry.

Looks like typical Tory neo-con spin and lies to me.}

Punditry is y definition opinion. Pundits try and predict both what the public thinks and how they will react.

To read your posts, the ones that get through, one would think that the CPC was Canada's version of Stalinist Russia. I can only imagine what your rejected posts are like. I would suggest leashing your temper when some don't agree with you and reading other people's points of view for value rather than dismissing them before reading them because they come from someone you deem to be Tory.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.